Brilliant post Fred.

hi fred - you did a great post.  i posted on the prostatitis newsgroup
and he didn't like what i said either.  that is why the rebuttal in the
BPH newsgroup and i didn't even post here.  

you should see my comment back to him.  i was nice about it, but he did
challenge me as to my knowledge.  

this guy doesn't have a clue on some things.  one is why if one has a
product for BPH would post this same spam ad on sci.med.prostate.cancer
newsgroup.  what good is it going to do for prostate cancer.

i did explain why how alpha blockers do work on the smooth muscle and
give one relief from BPH and it does work.

here's how.  the cells inside the prostate are increasing in size and
applying pressure to the smooth muscle.  they have no where to go, so
will close down or reduce the urethra.  by taking the alpha blockers,
the smooth muscle relaxes and allows the BPH tissue to expand and in
doing so, will take the pressure off the urethra and give the suffer the
relief they were seeking and better urine flow.

hope this explanation helps.

~ curtis

knowledge is power - growing old is mandatory - growing wise is optional

Hi Curtis

Let me start by accepting that you would seem to know more about the
prostate than I. On the other hand, nothing that you have said about it in
any way affects what I have done, and in any case, most of what you have
told me I did already know. I just do not see why such information is
pertinent to the website. How many prostate sufferers would understand, or
have any interest in understanding, terms such as epithelial? Even if I
explained that they are mainly stratified columnar epithelium?

Our website is designed to assist sufferers, not to impress experts. That is
not to say that I in any way deride expertise, nor that I do not place value
upon any assistance that might be forthcoming from experts. It is simply
that I have never been able to accept the dogma, which says that if a
writing doesn't have lots of words that most people don't understand, it
isn't scientific. The truth is that anybody who cannot explain their science
in language that most reasonably educated people can understand, either has
a very poor vocabulary, or doesn't really understand the science.

In fact, the prostate is far from being bereft of lipoproteins.

I am a little confused by your talk of testosterone being involved with
prostate tumours. BPH, (which does result from the influence of
testosterone) does not qualify as a tumour. As to my claiming to be able to
combat prostate cancer, my claim is only that it should be possible to make
ESP treatment work in this way - but that I would not carry out such a
development without medical assistance. As it happens, I know full well that
it can be made to work, but I'm not God and I don't have the right to
experiment upon my fellow man  - I sometimes wish that I had prostate cancer
so that I could develop the treatment on myself.

As I understand what you say, you seem to be the sort of person who needs to
know things, and you have a real motivation to understand, and the
intelligence to acquire such knowledge - But you do not have any
'certificated' medical training. As far as I'm concerned, your brain is at
least as capable as a trained medical person, and you are clearly aware of
far more detail with respect to the prostate than any medical student would
get from his or her medical training. Ergo, I would listen very carefully to
anything that you had to say on the matter. What puzzles me is why you
cannot imagine that I might not fit into a similar category.

I too, have a tendency to expect new 'ideas' to be flawed. I always,
however, take care to find the flaw for myself before rejecting the idea.
Indeed, I have on several occasions been able to correct the flaws in other
people's ideas.

I'm afraid I do not know 'Bob Dole' - perhaps I should, what is his level of
expertise with respect to the electrical properties of the mitotic process?
I would, indeed, jump at any chance to read other people's experiences in
this area, and a goodly part of my research has been to make such
discoveries. Why this man's name didn't crop up during my searches I cannot
say - but then, that does tend to be the nature of research.
Dr. Walsh did crop up, a very good man, but I didn't find any connection
between his work and mine - Apart from the obvious, of course.

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean about the financial markets. At
least, I'm not sure why the ESP machine should be linked with such. Almost
the whole of my working life has been devoted to solving problems for the
benefit of people who's only interest is to maximise profits from the
exploitation of the products that I have produced. Why should I want the ESP
machine to be subjected to such treatment? Why should I not end my days
trying to benefit sufferers rather than making investors rich?

You have made several references to prostatitis. The ESP machine cannot be
used to treat prostatitis. I have never made such a claim, or even implied
such. I know that electrical influences cannot be aimed at such a
condition - there is simply no 'target'.
Of course I know this, any fool would know that one cannot disrupt a
reaction that does not have a mechanism to impose disrupted forces upon. It
is one thing that you doubt the machine's ability to do that which I claim
for it, had I simply come across it, as you have done, I too would have had
reservations. But to actually put false claims into my mouth, so as to
speak, made your attack on me seem more emotional than scientific.

In order for any part of the body to actually 'grow', in the accepted
meaning of the word, the only mechanism available to biology is mitosis.
(Actually I ought to include meiosis - but that does not apply to the
prostate). My system is able to interfere with mitosis, by employing
particular patterns of electrical influence. I cannot believe that you would
argue that if mitotic cells are disrupted such that they fail to produce two
'daughter' cells, with the result that the parent cell is rendered necrotic,
that this will not ultimately effect a reduction of the mass of the tissue
involved.

I also find it hard to believe that any rational person would deny the
possibility that such influential signals could be produced. Where
reasonable doubt should come in - is that it might be possible to direct
such signals in such a way as to have a profound effect. I too, had my
doubts about this aspect. However, after much experimentation and the
scientific evaluation of data, collected by long term scientifically applied
'cause and effect' experimentation, it was found to be the case. I find it
difficult to accept that any human being, who has not conducted any tests of
such, could have a certain knowledge that it cannot be done. Where would
such insight spring from? And even if such an insight were to present
itself, what sort of person would be content to rely upon such a phenomenon?
I have discovered many 'new' things in my life, but never have I had the
courage to accept my 'insight' without practical confirmation.

Now, if you have some knowledge of mitosis, or aberrations of the passage of
electrical signals passing through body tissue, which would cause me to
wonder if the reduction in size of my own, and a number of other men's
prostates, plus a significant increase in our voiding rates, might be due to
something other than the effects of my machine. I would be pleased to
examine such with a good deal of concern.

So, may I ask, what have you studied with respect to this particular
possibility? What research can you point me at which would even seem to
disprove my interpretation of the results of my work?

Perhaps I should come clean with you. I have applied for patent protection
on my machine. However, that application makes no claims for the applied
science. Indeed, the disclosures made in the application rely upon the fact
that all of my claims, except the one upon which my novelty claim rests
(Which has nothing to do with any of the efficacious treatments) have all
been demonstrated (albeit piecemeal) by established, coherent and officially
approved medical experimentation.

In effect, all I am claiming to have done is to bring together the
observations of others, all far better qualified and equipped than I, into a
coherent 'package' such that it is able to safely meet the beneficial needs
of the sufferers of certain types of afflictions.

One of the most significant benefits of my machine, I have openly admitted
was 'discovered' entirely by accident. I have no need to make false claims.
I have a history of being able to solve problems, in very short time, when
established and esteemed experts have taken years and sometimes millions of
dollars, and failed.

All this, and the proofs of the soundness of the basic science of my ESP
technology are available to anyone who's interest justifies my spending the
time and trouble to make the disclosures. However, I do not intend to waste
my time, or disclose information, which I would be advised to keep ready for
the defence of my actions, without very good reason.

On the other hand, I will disclose to you that my researches lay mostly in
the area of cancer treatments, and largely academic research into mitosis
(including S phase studies) as well as the application of electrical
currents / signals to animal and vegetable tissue from sub-cellular, through
single cells to whole organs, etc., for all manner of purposes. That there
is, in fact, all the proof anyone could need, freely available, but so
disparately spread, sparsely reported, and so widely applied to all forms
biological matter, that it is not hard to see why it has not been
'assembled' before. Believe it or not, I learned much about what is required
from the many failures
that have been reported. It is often not the fact that something fails that
is important, it is often an understanding of why it failed.

Of course, all this ignores the levels of electrical and mathematical
science that would also be required in order to recognise the significance
of, and to translate this knowledge, into an ESP machine.

Three years is the longest time that I have ever devoted to a single
project. In fact, it is the first time in my professional life that I have
restricted myself to a single project.

Back in the mid 1960s I was hired to investigate the viability and
advisability of indoctrinating milk with fluoride - I found against on
bio-chemical grounds.

In the early 1970s, it took me only a few weeks to establish how to evaluate
and correct gunshot deafness, and my system is still in use today.

In the mid 1970s, I spent less than a week to establish that the same basic
technology, which was/is used to guide weapons through water, could be
applied to ultrasound body scanners. The basic design is still in use today.

In the 1980s I established that even 'perfect match' blood transfusions, and
'own blood' circulation bypass machines damage the immune system. Largely
ignored, but a fact nonetheless.

In 1989 - working at the behest of a senior anaesthetist, I established that
magnetic resonance techniques could be used to differentiate between venal
and arterial blood, and also establish the oxygen levels - using equipment
costing less than ?20 Stirling.

I have also been employed as a design consultant by the UK defence industry
with respect to actual guided weapon design.

I have also been employed by the auto industry to advise upon the validity
of new technology claims.

I have also been employed by the computer industry to advise upon and
develop security systems.

There is documentary evidence to establish the above facts.

Finally, three years ago I was examined and diagnosed (by a registered UK
NHS doctor) as suffering from BPH. My symptoms were severe pain, especially
when sitting, and a drastically reduced voiding rate. Three years on, I have
no pain at all, my voiding rate is up by nearly 500% and my prostate has
shrunk. I have been on no medication or treatment other than the ESP
machine. A miracle?

Best wishes

John Allen